Libyan War

[HeyYou]

The invasion of Kuwait was in the early 90's. We had a different president then, and he elected NOT to go into baghdad, to oust saddam. Why? No viable exit strategy. Which is PRECISELY where we are today. We didn't actually invade Iraq until the early 2000's, more than 10 years after Kuwait. The US wasn't getting any oil from Iraq, at least, not more than a drop in the proverbial bucket. This was a 'war' that did NOT turn out as was envisioned by its supporters. They RADICALLY misjudged the peoples reaction to the ouster of Saddam, and our boys paid the price for that mistake. They are STILL paying the price for that mistake.

 

And trying to rationalize the invasion by claiming Iraq was violating various sanctions is an empty argument. Look at Iran, they have been thumbing their collective noses at us since 1979, yet we haven't invaded them yet either. Saddam was at war with them for quite a while, and guess who was supporting him? That's right, the Good ol' US of A. Don't you think it is just a tad hypocritical of us to turn on our one-time allies? Same goes for Egypt, we had issues with the leadership, but, we were NOT actively trying to oust him. Along comes "arab spring", and now we are more than happy to turn on our one-time ally there too....... Some friends we are.

 

And we are not going to get regime change come 2013. We are going to get some new faces, maybe..... put into the same system, that will yield the exact same results for america. A further decline in our relevance on the world stage, and the continued erosion of our economy, and the complete disappearance of the middle class. There is so little difference between the two parties ideologically, on the issues that matter, foreign policy, corporate policy, etc, as they are basically indistinguishable, one from the other.

 

At the time of the invasion of Iraq we were enforcing a no-fly zone over the country and receiving surface to air fire from Iraqi forces. We had troops still stationed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The conflict was far from "over". If you shoot at American armed forces you must expect a response, they got one. If you violate a cease fire agreement that justifies re-initiating hostilities, it is in fact the entire point of a cease fire agreement. If you do these things we will stop attacking, if you don't we will continue to attack. What else is the point of a cease fire agreement?. Iraq was thumbing its nose at UN inspectors, almost every intelligence service in the world thought Saddam had WMD's, defectors testified to the fact. I think you are making a huge leap to say that Bush didn't think WMD's were in Iraq. Saddam actually used them against both Iran and the Kurds. Taking pot-shots with hindsight knowledge doesn't discount the huge amounts of evidence pointing to them having them VS the small amount of evidence going the other way.

 

On your second point about the 2012 elections I essentially agree.

 

 

I disagree with your points on Iraq. The reasoning that was floated to the american public to 'justify' the war was: Saddam was in league with terrorists. Patently untrue. Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Also patently untrue. The artillery shells that were found later, were leftovers from what the US sold Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. To wit: The only WMD's that Saddam had, were ones WE sold him. Saddam didn't even remember he had the things........

 

I also do not agree there was a 'cease-fire "agreement"' between us, and anyone in Iraq. We thoroughly beat the crap out of Saddam's million man army, their tanks didn't stand a chance. It was an extremely lopsided war. Saddam had no choice left in the matter, he had very little to fight with OTHER THAN his assorted anti-air defenses. He didn't 'agree' to anything. So far as he was concerned, he was still at war. All that aside, Saddam was completely contained. He could do nothing, go nowhere. There was zero reason for boots on the ground. Bush invaded Iraq because he WANTED to, not because there was any compelling reason to do so. Any information that was presented to him that went against what he was publicly preaching, was buried, the presenter discredited, or otherwise marginalized, flat out ignored, or told NOT to bring that up again, as it went against the current 'policy'....... Bush lied, manipulated, and schemed, to get his way. Colin Powell couldn't stomach it, he was AGAINST the war. He saw the way the wind was blowing, and resigned. Take note, he IMMEDIATELY disappeared from the public scene. Bush, who was HEAVILY involved with the oil companies, wanted Iraq's Oil. He saw an opportunity, and took it.

 

At this point, it is really difficult to tell any difference between our current administration, and the previous one. Most of the same policies that got us where we are today, (some call it a 'recession', I have a different term for it, but, this isn't the right thread for that particular debate. :D) are still being continued, and even expanded on. We have yet another unfunded war we are fighting, when we simply can't afford the two we already had. There is talk of a permanent presence in Iraq, but, it seems that is pretty one-sided, the Iraqi's don't really want us there, and I agree with them. They have the oil, let them get their oil revenues going, and start rebuilding their own country. We are spending billions, if not trillions, to 'help out' another country, when our own is quietly going down the toilet.

 

What? Cynical? Me???? Oh, say it ain't so. :D

[marharth]

Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, before we invaded. Just that anyone that told him so, was marginalized, ignored, or flat out fired. (why do you think Colin Powell resigned?) We had no business going there. We were lied to. Plain and simple. If the WMD's were the REAL reason we went, then why are we not invading North Korea? We KNOW for a FACT that they are developing nukes, they have tested a couple, but, do you hear anything about military action there? Nope. Iraq was all about oil. That's it. I found it absolutely hilarious when the time came to put those oil contracts up for bids, not a single american company was to be found.... reason? Security Issues.

 

Afghanistan: Our sole purpose for going there WAS regime change. The taliban were in charge, and we didn't like it. What's really amusing is, the US are the ones that PUT them in power in the first place. These were the rebels that we supported when the Soviet Union invaded. Seems the rebels were more than happy to accept our help, but, as soon as the Russians left, the US instantly became the Great Satan, and their goal was to destroy us. Nice huh?

 

Libya: This is a CIVIL war. NO other nation has ANY business getting involved. None. Zero. It is a purely internal issue, and we should just stay the hell out of it. But, again, there is OIL!!! there.

 

So, technically, the US is government that was in place when all of these actions occurred, are war criminals. We have used military force to overthrow a legitimate government. (for certain values of legitimate) We are going to spend billions blowing them up, and then billions more repairing the stuff we blew up. All at a time when programs designed to help AMERICAN citizens are getting the axe. Seems we can help anyone else, but ourselves.

 

Someone needs to invade the US, and implement some Regime Change. :D

Glad to see you posting here.

 

Just to point something out, I don't think anyone is arguing that we did not invade Afghanistan for regime change.

 

They helped out Al Qaeda, so we wanted to get them for it.

[HeyYou]

Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, before we invaded. Just that anyone that told him so, was marginalized, ignored, or flat out fired. (why do you think Colin Powell resigned?) We had no business going there. We were lied to. Plain and simple. If the WMD's were the REAL reason we went, then why are we not invading North Korea? We KNOW for a FACT that they are developing nukes, they have tested a couple, but, do you hear anything about military action there? Nope. Iraq was all about oil. That's it. I found it absolutely hilarious when the time came to put those oil contracts up for bids, not a single american company was to be found.... reason? Security Issues.

 

Afghanistan: Our sole purpose for going there WAS regime change. The taliban were in charge, and we didn't like it. What's really amusing is, the US are the ones that PUT them in power in the first place. These were the rebels that we supported when the Soviet Union invaded. Seems the rebels were more than happy to accept our help, but, as soon as the Russians left, the US instantly became the Great Satan, and their goal was to destroy us. Nice huh?

 

Libya: This is a CIVIL war. NO other nation has ANY business getting involved. None. Zero. It is a purely internal issue, and we should just stay the hell out of it. But, again, there is OIL!!! there.

 

So, technically, the US is government that was in place when all of these actions occurred, are war criminals. We have used military force to overthrow a legitimate government. (for certain values of legitimate) We are going to spend billions blowing them up, and then billions more repairing the stuff we blew up. All at a time when programs designed to help AMERICAN citizens are getting the axe. Seems we can help anyone else, but ourselves.

 

Someone needs to invade the US, and implement some Regime Change. :D

Glad to see you posting here.

 

Just to point something out, I don't think anyone is arguing that we did not invade Afghanistan for regime change.

 

They helped out Al Qaeda, so we wanted to get them for it.

 

My question becomes, who really got whom there? Under the taliban, opium was illegal, and they took steps to squash production, and took a very dim view of anyone involved. (they usually found themselves dead, or in prison.) These days, 80% of the worlds opium production comes from Afghanistan..... the American government does nothing about it, as they don't want to 'alienate' the farmers... that make a boatload more money from opium, than they do wheat. We pay bribes to the very people that we are fighting, so our supply convoys can get through..... they use the money to buy arms to fight us with. Where is the logic in that? Are we really that stupid? (seems so.....)

[marharth]

Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, before we invaded. Just that anyone that told him so, was marginalized, ignored, or flat out fired. (why do you think Colin Powell resigned?) We had no business going there. We were lied to. Plain and simple. If the WMD's were the REAL reason we went, then why are we not invading North Korea? We KNOW for a FACT that they are developing nukes, they have tested a couple, but, do you hear anything about military action there? Nope. Iraq was all about oil. That's it. I found it absolutely hilarious when the time came to put those oil contracts up for bids, not a single american company was to be found.... reason? Security Issues.

 

Afghanistan: Our sole purpose for going there WAS regime change. The taliban were in charge, and we didn't like it. What's really amusing is, the US are the ones that PUT them in power in the first place. These were the rebels that we supported when the Soviet Union invaded. Seems the rebels were more than happy to accept our help, but, as soon as the Russians left, the US instantly became the Great Satan, and their goal was to destroy us. Nice huh?

 

Libya: This is a CIVIL war. NO other nation has ANY business getting involved. None. Zero. It is a purely internal issue, and we should just stay the hell out of it. But, again, there is OIL!!! there.

 

So, technically, the US is government that was in place when all of these actions occurred, are war criminals. We have used military force to overthrow a legitimate government. (for certain values of legitimate) We are going to spend billions blowing them up, and then billions more repairing the stuff we blew up. All at a time when programs designed to help AMERICAN citizens are getting the axe. Seems we can help anyone else, but ourselves.

 

Someone needs to invade the US, and implement some Regime Change. :D

Glad to see you posting here.

 

Just to point something out, I don't think anyone is arguing that we did not invade Afghanistan for regime change.

 

They helped out Al Qaeda, so we wanted to get them for it.

 

My question becomes, who really got whom there? Under the taliban, opium was illegal, and they took steps to squash production, and took a very dim view of anyone involved. (they usually found themselves dead, or in prison.) These days, 80% of the worlds opium production comes from Afghanistan..... the American government does nothing about it, as they don't want to 'alienate' the farmers... that make a boatload more money from opium, than they do wheat. We pay bribes to the very people that we are fighting, so our supply convoys can get through..... they use the money to buy arms to fight us with. Where is the logic in that? Are we really that stupid? (seems so.....)

Our country is simply blinded by revenge imo.

[csgators]

Back on topic...

 

Today makes it 60 days from initiation of force against Libya without congressional approval. The approval should have been sought before hand but technically the president had 60 days (if given a VERY generous reading of the law). Tomorrow this will officially become an illegal military action in the eyes of US law.

[DeTomaso]

What about a civil war in the USA with gazillion of dead civilians in the streets and trice as much on the run towards the closed Mexican and Canadian border - and nobody in the outerworld wants to be engaged in it, not even in humanitarian aid, saying "this is not our problem"? State courage is the collective, organized form of what? Yes - of civil courage. If we have no such civil courage, well then we'd better pray daily "Let this cup of wrath pass from me!"

[HeyYou]

What about a civil war in the USA with gazillion of dead civilians in the streets and trice as much on the run towards the closed Mexican and Canadian border - and nobody in the outerworld wants to be engaged in it, not even in humanitarian aid, saying "this is not our problem"? State courage is the collective, organized form of what? Yes - of civil courage. If we have no such civil courage, well then we'd better pray daily "Let this cup of wrath pass from me!"

 

Civil courage? Involving ourselves is yet another war is a "good thing"??????

[DeTomaso]

What about a civil war in the USA with gazillion of dead civilians in the streets and trice as much on the run towards the closed Mexican and Canadian border - and nobody in the outerworld wants to be engaged in it, not even in humanitarian aid, saying "this is not our problem"? State courage is the collective, organized form of what? Yes - of civil courage. If we have no such civil courage, well then we'd better pray daily "Let this cup of wrath pass from me!"

 

Civil courage? Involving ourselves is yet another war is a "good thing"??????

 

Looking away as lifestyle - is that a "good thing"? Doubtlessly not in the long run for sooner or later oneself draws the shortest straw. And then what?

The meaning is not that we should sit on a watchtower round the clock looking for serious problems. But when somebody cries for help, he shouldn't fall on deaf ears only because it is much safer to remain seated in our oasis of calm smoking an innocent pipe as if nothing has happened. Straightforwardness is in demand wherever civilians come under heavy pressure, not the widespread hypocricy of today - some get help, the rest gets nothing.

Edited May 20, 2011 by DeTomaso

[Lisnpuppy]

Back on topic...

 

Today makes it 60 days from initiation of force against Libya without congressional approval. The approval should have been sought before hand but technically the president had 60 days (if given a VERY generous reading of the law). Tomorrow this will officially become an illegal military action in the eyes of US law.

 

That is where they get you...how is this action official "defined"? Does anyone know for sure? That is how ALL parties (and I include congress as well as the president...and not just THIS admin) circumvent these things.

 

What it is CALLED is as important as what it IS.

[csgators]

Back on topic...

 

Today makes it 60 days from initiation of force against Libya without congressional approval. The approval should have been sought before hand but technically the president had 60 days (if given a VERY generous reading of the law). Tomorrow this will officially become an illegal military action in the eyes of US law.

 

That is where they get you...how is this action official "defined"? Does anyone know for sure? That is how ALL parties (and I include congress as well as the president...and not just THIS admin) circumvent these things.

 

What it is CALLED is as important as what it IS.

 

Good question indeed. $750 million worth of bombs and missiles is something, but what?